Key Points and Summary – In 2020, the U.S. Marine Corps made the drastic decision to eliminate its entire force of M1 Abrams tanks, a move that is still debated today.
-The rationale was a strategic pivot towards creating a lighter, more agile force optimized for island-hopping warfare in a potential conflict with China.
-War games predicting the dominance of missiles and drones, plus the devastating tank losses seen in Ukraine, appear to validate the decision.
-However, critics warn that a Marine Corps without tanks could be dangerously vulnerable in a large-scale land war, the very kind it has often fought in the past.
Did the Marine Corps Make the Correct Decision by Eliminating Its Tank Force?
If you are a U.S. Marine Corps veteran of the War on Terror, Operation Desert Storm, or the Vietnam War, you probably served with, or know someone who was, a leatherneck tanker.
But in 2020, the Marines decided to do away with their tanks. The Marine Corps had 452 M1 Abrams tanks in its force – some of them in reserve, but many ready for action.
In December 2020, the Marines sent 323 of the Abrams beasts to the Army. Others remaining on amphibious ships and in storage were transferred in 2023. Eight-hundred Marines who operated the tanks were given a choice to change occupational specialties or to retire early.
Executing an Evolving Strategy
This decision resulted from a strategic shift. The idea was to make the force more nimble and agile, allowing Marines to focus on island fighting backed by missile strikes. Large tank formations were now seen as the domain of the Army.
“The Army is huge,” former Marine Corps Commandant Gen. David H. Berger said. “We need a big Army. They win our wars. The Marine Corps doesn’t win the wars. We win the battles.”
Many Reasons for the Change
The Marines would focus on being lighter and better able to fight expeditionary wars by rapidly deploying in the Indo-Pacific with quick assaults using amphibious warfare techniques. This was seen as a way to get back to the Corps’ World War Two roots and operate in closer cooperation with the Navy – plus it saved money and freed up funds for missiles and amphibious assets.
Marines would also emphasize jungle warfare, or be ready if they needed to seize territory quickly from China in a potential conflict. Moving tanks into position was seen as slow and ponderous.
Ukraine Has Been a Graveyard for Tanks
The Marines ran numerous war games and simulations to examine what battle would be like in the 2030s, and they determined that future conflict would be dominated by missiles and drones. This appeared to be a good prediction, as the tank has endured a difficult war in Ukraine – thousands of platforms have been destroyed by anti-tank missiles and loitering munitions. Most of the American M1 Abrams tanks that were sent to Ukraine have been knocked out by the Russians.
What Is the ‘Littoral Regiment?’
The Marines are opting for a new way to deploy infantry – a group of devil dogs called the “littoral regiment” that combines dismounted fighters with artillery, logistics, and an anti-air battery.
“The moves are to enable small units of 75 Marines down to a squad-sized element to disperse themselves across vast distances but at key chokepoints to help the Navy knock out enemy ships,” according to the Marine Times.
But What If There Is a Huge Land War?
This is fine for amphibious operations, but what if the Marines need to join the Army on huge flat-land operations such as those in Europe?
This lighter force without tanks would struggle to survive in all-out warfare on rural terrain. The Marines would also be without tanks in cities, which could make urban combat tougher. Over the last 70 years, the Marines have fought large land wars in Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf, and Afghanistan, said CSIS fellow and former marine Mark Cancian.
“A Marine Corps custom-designed for distributed operations on islands in the Western Pacific will be poorly designed and poorly trained for the land campaigns it is most likely to fight,” Cancian wrote in War on the Rocks.
The Marines are making a big bet that future war will be fought in the Pacific, and that Marines will have to move fast to get into position to fight.
Getting rid of every single tank in the force was a drastic move that concerns me. On one hand, tanks have not enjoyed a good war in Ukraine. But on the other hand, leathernecks still need armored protection, even if tanks become mobile artillery that remains in the rear. Using Marines as light infantry in littoral groups makes sense if the fight is on an island with the need for rapid infiltration or exfiltration.
If there is a future war around Taiwan, the Chinese will use tanks there, and it will be up to the Marines to fight a more insurgent battle using their anti-tank missiles and drones, like the Ukrainians do.
However, the Marines could be fighting alongside the Army, which would have plenty of tanks to deploy. I have mixed feelings about the Marine Corps’ decision. It is hard to predict where the next war will be fought. But the Marines have shown they are willing to make difficult strategic decisions and stick to them.
The war in Ukraine may have proved they were right all along to get rid of tanks. This was a redundant capability that the Army deploys already in robust fashion.
The Marines are now seen as a Day One force that could defeat China’s anti-access/area denial strategy. They will be quickly inserted into battle, and that places them into an era of warfare that could make the Chinese pay if they attack Taiwan or other countries that are allied with the United States.
About the Author: Dr. Brent M. Eastwood
Brent M. Eastwood, PhD is the author of Don’t Turn Your Back On the World: a Conservative Foreign Policy and Humans, Machines, and Data: Future Trends in Warfare plus two other books. Brent was the founder and CEO of a tech firm that predicted world events using artificial intelligence. He served as a legislative fellow for U.S. Senator Tim Scott and advised the senator on defense and foreign policy issues. He has taught at American University, George Washington University, and George Mason University. Brent is a former U.S. Army Infantry officer. He can be followed on X @BMEastwood.
More Military
We Almost Touched the F-117 Stealth Fighter
